tv [untitled] April 3, 2012 6:30am-7:00am PDT
looks at san francisco bay, and did particular, the embarcadero, and the location of 8 washington. the study predicts there is a probability of one-sixth of flooding at 8 washington within the next 80 years. one-six is a very high probability as persons who participated in russian roulette would tell you if they could. flooding of lower-lying areas would result in water flowing down the sloping interest -- entrance of the low-car garage accumulating in water up to 40 feet deeper. that does not mean 400 cars
parked in the garage would get wet. they would be floating. as for being prepared, what would be the reaction, and what should be to these projections? by lenders and particular, by insurers, and by the voters who see if there neighborhoods could be affected by projects such as this as well. my answer would be that the project this regard for the greater good of san francisco. it think you. -- thank you. >> good afternoon. i am with the ring, point favorite association. you were all san franciscans. i assume you all know where it is.
we are in other segments of the community that is opposed to this project. definitely concerned about the height. another project that adds to the canyon affect along the embarcadero, just like the restaurants and the ballpark and the fact that it is not creating housing for the people of san francisco. i would like to address some of the myths that seem to continue about projects like these that the jobs are going to create economic prosperity for the city and the tax revenue will bring in lots of money. the worst one of all, the developers do not seem to be able to stop complaining that there is this horde of opposition for every project that once to be built in the city. using up my street as a random sample, i have lived on howard
street for 21 years. if you walk down howard street from the water going west, there are more big projects, either built or in the works then you can count. there are scores of them. hi-rise office building, condo buildings, hotels. you name it. how many of those incurred any significant opposition? i do not think any of them did. there is even what people like to call the campus at first and how word. for a large office buildings. no opposition. so when you see a lot of people showing of to express concern, there is a reason for that. it is very disconcerting people seem to know what the outcome of
this vote is going to be. it is time you start listening to the people. thank you very much. >> steve stone. barbara stewart. and ernestein weist. >> i n jolt rosen bought. -- i am joel rosenblought. as of today, 44,000 tennis players from juniors to senior citizens and set francisco and the bay area are four days from the beginning of the united
states tennis association team's season. we are the northern california section of the usga, the national not-profit organization that is devoted to promoting a developing the growth of tennis. and i will use my artistic license and substitute recreation for tennis. the golden gate way club sponsored tend to swing 10 matches each in his first season. each will invite a minimum of eight non-club members and their supporters and families every weekend as opponents of those matches over the next 2.5 months. that means there will be a minimum of 1600 tennis players, have having no formal affiliation or membership to the club, coming to play tennis of the golden gate way. that is just one season.
there are multiple seasons in each year. there will be combination teams that joined players of different abilities. men and women will play together on some teams. teams for individuals in their 60s. and those above 70. then the club offers passes to invite non-members to play in hundreds of friendly matches or for tennis lessons. taken together it would be a conservative effort to save this private club in bytes 4000 people per year that are not members just to play tennis. i am not even talking about swimming. there is a lot of tennis played at the club. the planning commission and the responses about what happens to the of usta if the club is raised "the golden gate we tennis in club would not have a sufficient number of tennis courts to maintain certain
tennis programs such as tournament play and club tournament. plain enough. fair enough. the evaluation of the plans to replace the club with condominiums, the commission in its revised comments is not honest about what happens to the tenants under seqa. according to this, the implementation of the project would have a significantly bigger impact come only if the word to impact other ports negatively. there are 168 courts in this city. not all of those are playable, many are not. and i asked you to please take a look at the public courts you cite in this document and see how truly playable they are before you eliminate this number
of tennis courts and this amount of playing for the thousands of people who play here throughout the year. thank you. >> david stockdale and susan mccoulath. >> them, but afternoon. i am the proud creator of scary part open space jim. -- open space gym. the hide is obscene architectural atrocity. the historic view of the ferry building, and the public trust that says no housing there on.
it is out of sync with the 40 foot height of the north waterfront with no setbacks. it blocks the sunshine of all tenants on the south side and the side of my building, 440 davis court. it will no longer be sunshine there, and it will also block the sunshine on a very park. i know that. i live there. nobody talks about the accumulative affect of traffic off, the exploratory of, the cruise terminal, except for a. no study was taken. it is dangerous across there. it will destroy the club as we know it as a beautiful entity of open space entertainment and
sports for people who need it. seniordo not destroy this beautl section of the embarcadero. do not lie. go along with what their roles tell you, and make sure you do not put down a big box on the corner that makes no sense at all. it does not belong there. please get rid of this ugly thing once and for all. we are all fed up with it. the consensus is 99 percent against it. carry out the duties you are paid for to do the will of the people. that is what you're here for, and that is what you were paid for. [applause] >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of center for urban education about
sustainable agriculture. we are a non-profits that operates the farmers' market at the ferry building. i am here representing my board, stop, and the 120 small businesses, farmers and food are decisions that sell in the market and rely on the market place for a significant portion of their yearly revenue. we believe the 8 washington project is an example of the best use of this site and works well to stabilize and the neighborhood, residential and commercial character and that this area of the waterfront. continuing process begun a number of years ago. this process transforms the space from a club and parking lot from a multi-layered residents and creates more
active public spaces for the shoppers, visitors, employees, as well as for local residents. it also creates better access to the waterfront from adjacent neighborhoods, build the recondition club come at a new retail spaces at the additional parking to support the area retail, including the markets. admittedly, the short term also parking cannot be seen as a temporary problem for our business is. as long as there is temporary parking, it is very much welcome. we believe the eir as thoroughly
analyze all of the uses and impacts, the traffic impacts, and therefore should be certified. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am zane greshim on behalf of eop. eop has transformed the building to the jewel of san francisco. from out sick, adequate parking was recognized as essential. therefore, when eop entered into the lease they insisted on a parking agreement, insuring they would have 150 dedicated parking spaces for the oferry building.
the project proposed by the port in san francisco waterfront partners is inconsistent, and the proposed plan is inadequate and does not comply with seqa, a few of the major deficiencies. i am clear -- due to numerous changes made to the project by the project sponsor come inaccurate statements about the parking agreement and obligations of the port and the rights. transportation analyses based on outdated and incomplete traffic and parking data resulted in a failure to disclose, parking and transportation impacts. during construction and after completion. ignoring the project significant traffic and air quality impacts during the america's cup, and
the virtual passant -- absence of analysis despite the obvious environmental impacts, particularly in an era of global warming and sea level rise. and for these reasons come as well as those that many others as stated, the final eir does not comply with ceqa. it must be revised to provide adequate information and the recirculated to love the public to review this augmented information. eop respectfully request the commission take no action until the significant deficiencies are corrected. the serious flaws in the project are remedied, and the concerns of community groups and other stakeholders are resolved. and legally adequate notice of the proposed actions are given. thank you. >> danielle delaney, helen
johnson, and roger wong. >> hello. i'm susan mccullough. i am a longtime district 3 network. i am here today to speak on behalf of north beach neighbors and individuals. i think you hear a different point of view from me. no. pete shaorth beach neighbors supports the project. according to the eir, the project will provide three times out for recreation space, exceeding the requirements of the city planning code. we think this will reconnect to the waterfront issue you have heard from some of the people today. it is also an for the project sponsors have reached out to the community and have tried to make changes with their project.
we think they have done a good job over the years and have been working on this for quite a long time. the inclusion of parking in the project we view as a positive aspect. we think it is important for the residents and for the commercial projects and the surrounding areas. also, you have heard things about the fitness centers. the project sponsors have made it clear they are committed to the fitness center. the center is actually going to be larger in size, and we think that is benefit. i personally find office space very important, because i have been going through of with their be as a cancer survivor. my mother goes through aqua therapy as a senior. the fact that they will expand the business base to make it more state of art, multiple the picture pools, this is all very significant and will give back
to the community. we think the new cafe will be something that will open up and reconnect the neighborhood. i encourage you to vote in support of the project. thank you. >> my name is helen johnson. i am resident of the gateway. i am not here to talk about myself interest. i live in the village, and i love living there because for someone my age it has all ages, and it has been such a wonderful privilege for me to live there. i am most concerned about the social aspect. our society is in turmoil. we had all of these protests about the upper 1 percent. this project will be not only for the upper%, but many people from abroad. that is not about the breadth and more.
-- that is not about the neighborhood anymore. in san francisco where freedom is so prized, keep that in mind when you are making this decision. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is daniel delancy. i would like to talk with you today about how i feel the proposal would negatively impact the aquatics and outdoor recreation space available to the entire community. first, i would like to describe a few of the programs that are offered for kids, middle-class and elderly. while some people think of it as a tennis and swim club, is actually much more. gateway has a lot will come a smaller pool for exercise wear glasses, a large deck area and
small pavilion. it is important to note that these host programs available to the public. the most noticeable program that use these is something called kid's cam. kids can't serves over 700 campers and employs an additional 20 people each summer by providing activities such as tennis, swimming, arts and crafts. it has given $30,000 in scholarship awards so that children can envoy -- children from low-income families can enjoy these programs as well. these are the only fools and the city of san francisco but host year-round outdoor open swim. while the pools are a key part of the space, they're not only things utilize by the community. these bases are used for community events such as barbeques come at family gatherings, and fund raising
events. there are few problems we see with the washington street proposal. first off, the proposal is very vague. when it comes to the areas, there is one large pool not open to the community. it appears there would be no lawand the deck area would not be conducive to to that positioning. the next problem is the figures with regard to the existing outdoor recreation space are extremely misleading. in the 2006 proposal what you can see here is the proposal states there are 21,600 existing speed feet of outdoor recreation. fast forward to 2011, and the numbers have gone to 9000 square feet. i can assure you 10,000 square feet were not magically lost. what does this mean? if the proposal does go through
come in negatively impact outdoor recreation facilities available. there would be a complete loss of kids camp. a complete loss of open swim and other service is open to the public. diminished capacity of things like lawn areas. while this may seem that site something that would benefit a small number of individuals, this is actually utilized by the community for the full extent. thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon. i am margaret, and i have for 47 years looked directly at 8 washington. so do other 16 other residential units in my building. between us is the district. the developers want height
reclassification to 136 feet. why not 200? so much more profit. why not throw the 84 height limit underthe bus? well, i found no statement of necessity for doing this anywhere in the proposal. the ferry building is only 200 feet high. it will be 40 and 45 by the time it is put up on top. the effect of the development will be to wall off more of the waterfront from those to the north and west. have you noticed only five of the multiple pretty pictures shown to you includes tethe ferry building.
not from quite tower, where you will have to go to get the view. 8 washington at must not be allowed past the 84 foot height limit that is now enforced. changing the 84 foot height limits might pass down the wisdom of anybody who does so in this block. >> tim rife. june osenberg, who i believe i recalled. ralph rodgers. >gers . >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is roger wong.
i am an architect and president of san francisco. i have lived here for over 35 years and work along projects -- worked on projects along the waterfront. this proposal that we have before us is a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity. it is intelligent, well thought out and financially balanced. this proposal is truly greater than the sum of its parts. here you are taking two lots, a triangular site to develop with surface parking, not the best use of the site. combine that with the private parcel, which is the club, and you that the project that has these effects. first of all, but embarcadero, not. it does so by connecting the access from jackson and pacific
region pacific avenue to the waterfront and supplies pedestrian to support the retail on the western side. it reinforces the, not a shot with ground-floor retail, restaurant, and cafes. 29,000 square feet of open space, 45 square feet -- 4500 square feet of playground that families and neighborhoods and everyone in san francisco can use. that is very important. it replaces an outdoor club with a new state of the art recreation and aquatics center and will fund a 33 affordable housing units that should be at the site. the project, by combining the sights, the majority is placed on the south end. what that does is freeze up and
does not block the view of the existing residents to the waterfront. it allows of greater and more importantly efficient -- official use of the parking lot, and in turn helps support -- in turn it makes the port become more so sustainable entity with the balance in the budget. of allows the site to be utilized and enjoyed by the higher concentration of public and private users, and in the time of sustainability and depletion of resources, i find of the density on this site is appropriate. i urge you guys to vote in favor of this project. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners.
i am a native san franciscan. i urge you to support this project for a number of reasons. a, it creates a lot of jobs. we have a developer that is ready to go on it. to, we talked about the height limit. before 1989 with the embarcadero freeway was there, if it was blocking your view. what you have now is a lot better than that. plus, change is part of what is going on in this city. without change, we would be stagnant. i urge you to pass this project. thank you very much. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the planning commission. i am an engineer working in this city and living in the city for
55 years. i am also a commissioner at the board of examiners. and at my hearings we have 10 people, not a crowd, so i do not envy you. this year will be my 30th year on the board of examiners. i have worked and lived in san francisco near the embarcadero. my first job was admission and fremont, and then i moved to market. also, i was a member of golden gate way tennis and swim club and gave up tennis when i could not see the ball anymore. i urge you to approve the eir so finally we can go to work and get the ball rolling